Jump to content

Fw190 Soviet Training Video


SCG_PeeGee
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder why opinions differ so much... Many Luftwaffe pilots considered the 190 to be equal to, or superior to the 109. And yet the VVS don't seem to be too impressed by it. What gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

Overall Fw were considerably lower numbers and it was employed for Jabo work initially. I don't think they saw them in the fighter role as much and often faced them low and slow or in the run phase of hit and run attacks. Lastly, many Fw were piloted by transitioned Stuka pilots with relatively low air to air combat experience. They, generally, probably didn't put up the same kind of a fight a transitioned Bf pilot might. I'm sure many in the former category did but probably not most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why opinions differ so much... Many Luftwaffe pilots considered the 190 to be equal to, or superior to the 109. And yet the VVS don't seem to be too impressed by it. What gives?

In reading Yakovlev's book "The Aim of a Lifetime" he was not at all impressed with 190 from a strictly performance standpoint. He was a strict adherent to the lighter is better idea of aircraft design. His favorite design was the Yak 1 and all the improvements were about making it lighter and more aerodynamic unlike almost every other designer I can think of. He stuck with the original engine because it was adequate in his opinion and saw increases in horsepower as an ultimately a undesirable trade off of increased complication and weight. This vid reflects this opinion along with some propaganda bravado IMHO. The very real fact it could put 5,000+ rounds down range a minute had to strike fear in those watching that movie.

 

There are all kinds of opinions on "the best" and some of them are really interesting like the VVS loving the P39 while everybody else hated it. For me that's what's been painful seeing the bashing that's been going on when what if your favorite plane just doesn't fit your style and was really a particular kind of "dog" that you had to have a certain style to use effectively? Meanwhile it was modeled correctly but Dev's are taking a beating for being accurate? Dunno, but thanks OP for the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the west really fly the p39? I was under the impression it was outclassed by spitfire and mustang so the majority was sent over to russia, meaning the west never really used it in anger, I might be wrong....

Did the west really fly the p39? I was under the impression it was outclassed by spitfire and mustang so the majority was sent over to russia, meaning the west never really used it in anger, I might be wrong....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Used a lot in the pacific, in the ETO high altitude performance was needed, but with no supercharger it was better suited to the mostly low altitude fighting in the East where its disadvantages were as not apparent

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*

Used a lot in the pacific, in the ETO high altitude performance was needed, but with no supercharger it was better suited to the mostly low altitude fighting in the East where its disadvantages were as not apparent

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

P39 was used by USA against Japs, and it did very poor against the Zero, also because it's good turnrate was completely useless against the Zero. Also not useful on high alt.

+the russian reworked this plane. When it was used in mediterreanean the germans valued this plane performancewise alongside the hurricane and p40..all those being outclassed by the G6. But the russian reworked it, and it became a lot better airplane, in fact so good that they used it till the end of the war. You can't compare it to the one the americans used.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm flying the FW-190 in the campaign right now, and of course - it is not as maneuverable and as fast as the Bf-109. But - that armament, excellent view behind, superb dive... Coupled with relatively docile handling on takeoff and landing, sturdy air frame, versatility, radial engine - no wonder Germans loved it. Horizontal turn time is not everything.

 

Also note how in the video it's always compared to the Bf-109 - not the Soviet fighters. What the propaganda dude is not saying there is that its performance is worse than the Soviet fighters, but only down below 3000 meters, past that altitude it has better climb than most Soviet planes and is faster. Couple that with proper tactics, and you have a winner.

 

Comparing the numbers - I didn't time the climb, or TAS at altitude, but speed at sea level is about there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

The Cowl armor is quite interesting, should I be able to sit on Bombers Sixxes with that kind of armor? Shkas Shouldn't do too well against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cowl armor is quite interesting, should I be able to sit on Bombers Sixxes with that kind of armor? Shkas Shouldn't do too well against it.

 

 

No.  The armour around the motor was intended to provide a measure of protection for certain of the aircraft's vulnerable engine components.  It would have been of some  use against flak splinters and rifle cal. ball ammo, as long as you didn't get too close to the guy shooting at you.  It absolutely wasn't some sort of 'ring of invulnerability'.  If you sat behind an enemy bomber in your 190 you'd be shot to bits in short order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*

No.  The armour around the motor was intended to provide a measure of protection for certain of the aircraft's vulnerable engine components.  It would have been of some  use against flak splinters and rifle cal. ball ammo, as long as you didn't get too close to the guy shooting at you.  It absolutely wasn't some sort of 'ring of invulnerability'.  If you sat behind an enemy bomber in your 190 you'd be shot to bits in short order.

Sturmjäger are the proof that this is completely wrong. They did just that..sitting on bombers (not any bomber, the best armed bomber ever) 6oclock and shooting them down in huuge numbers, without have to many casualties. The armor was strong. Definitely not invicible, but even 0.5 call did ricochet in certain angles. A8 was probably the most rugged fighter ever after P47

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm not taking what Yakovlev said without a grain of salt, but he makes a big deal in the book about the spec propaganda the Nazi's were doing with the 109 and then the 190. Like a really high performance engine that was put in the 109 just to get speed records but proved to be totally unreliable for combat. The Russians were intensely psy-opt'd about the 190 according to Yakovlev so it doesn't surprise me they made this film to counteract the hype.

 

It also makes sense to me the Russians didn't need to compare their aircraft to the 190 because unlike the Nazi's they had so many different fighters with different series not to mention the Lend Lease aircraft, why bother? It's all about knowing your ride and how it compared to that particular series you were flying against. When I put all that stuff together along with the possible field mods and relative experience of each pilot the variables are just staggering enough to make luck a huge factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.GShAP/Silas

That book was published in 1972 Soviet Union. There is literally no way it would have been published at all without state censorship and approval, end of story. Due respect to Yakolev, but I'd take it with a truckload of salt, not a grain.

 

And if you insist on referring to Germans by the ruling political regime, then please refer to the Russians as communists as well.

Edited by Silas
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies Silas I guess I don't know how to talk about the political side of all this. Yakovlev didn't need any censorship, he was steadfastly a Communist. But I don't see what that has to do with any of this. I was merely trying to relate the viewpoint I'd read about and it wasn't party lines as far as I could see. He seemed to think everybody was chasing speed thru raw power and throwing other aspects away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yakovlev used VK105PF engine simply because there was no other more powerfull inline available.M106 and later VK 107 had lots of problems from design and did not make it into reliable engines suitable for mass production.Only way to squeeze some speed from his Yak1 design was weight reduction and some aerodynamic tweakings which resulted in Yak3.From all superlatives it got in afterwar literature we can be certain only of one.It was really lightest fighter.

From memories of VVS pilots their adversaries flying Fw 190 in JaBo missions were very good at that and used its superior speed in dive to quickly bomb the target and dissappear.Even La5FN fighters had hard times catching them.Only introduction of La7 gave VVS pilots ability to supress such tactics.

 

Sturmjäger are the proof that this is completely wrong. They did just that..sitting on bombers (not any bomber, the best armed bomber ever) 6oclock and shooting them down in huuge numbers, without have to many casualties. The armor was strong. Definitely not invicible, but even 0.5 call did ricochet in certain angles. A8 was probably the most rugged fighter ever after P47

:huh::nea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did just that..sitting on bombers (not any bomber, the best armed bomber ever) 6oclock and shooting them down in huuge numbers, without have to many casualties. 

 

That's an extreme exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*

That's an extreme exaggeration.

not at all, just read about it. They did always attack from dead six, kill the rear gunner from large range with small caliber, and then going behind the dead spot of the top gunner (behind the tail unit). And yes, they shot down huge numbers. B17 feared them the most of all enemy pilots/planes, till the 262 came. That's actually quite well-known (at least in german historic circles). Maybe western propaganda doesn't admit this with good grace

Edited by Celestiale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sturmjäger are the proof that this is completely wrong. They did just that..sitting on bombers (not any bomber, the best armed bomber ever) 6oclock and shooting them down in huuge numbers, without have to many casualties. The armor was strong. Definitely not invicible, but even 0.5 call did ricochet in certain angles. A8 was probably the most rugged fighter ever after P47

 

Sigh ........

 

You are confusing the heavily armoured FW 190 A-8s, which were used in 'Gefechtsverband' formations against the Eighth Air Force later in the War, with the FW 190 A-3s employed in the game.

 

The  A-8/R8s used by the Sturmbock units were both an up-gunned and up-armoured version of the standard A-8 with extra protection to the engine, cockpit and ammunition boxes.  These units were intended to attack, from the rear, in formation, in a sort of airborne version of a cavalry charge. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, it soon became clear that getting a Staffeln of heavily armoured 190s into position behind a formation of US heavies was far more difficult than initially anticipated.  Worse still, if the swarming American fighters broke through the 109s and 190Ds assigned to protect the R8s, then the latter, which were comparatively slow and unmanoeuvrable, were shot down like flies.    

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*

Sigh ........

 

You are confusing the heavily armoured FW 190 A-8s, which were used in 'Gefechtsverband' formations against the Eighth Air Force later in the War, with the FW 190 A-3s employed in the game.

 

The A-8/R8s used by the Sturmbock units were both an up-gunned and up-armoured version of the standard A-8 with extra protection to the engine, cockpit and ammunition boxes. These units were intended to attack, from the rear, in formation, in a sort of airborne version of a cavalry charge. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, it soon became clear that getting a Staffeln of heavily armoured 190s into position behind a formation of US heavies was far more difficult than initially anticipated. Worse still, if the swarming American fighters broke through the 109s and 190Ds assigned to protect the R8s, then the latter, which were comparatively slow and unmanoeuvrable, were shot down like flies.

Good to see that some guys in hear have a clue about what they are talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not at all, just read about it. They did always attack from dead six, kill the rear gunner from large range with small caliber, and then going behind the dead spot of the top gunner (behind the tail unit). And yes, they shot down huge numbers. B17 feared them the most of all enemy pilots/planes, till the 262 came. That's actually quite well-known (at least in german historic circles). Maybe western propaganda doesn't admit this with good grace

 

LOL, try again. My research into the Sturmbock formations and how successful they were come from German sources, not "western propaganda." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sturmjäger are the proof that this is completely wrong. They did just that..sitting on bombers (not any bomber, the best armed bomber ever) 6oclock and shooting them down in huuge numbers, without have to many casualties. The armor was strong. Definitely not invicible, but even 0.5 call did ricochet in certain angles. A8 was probably the most rugged fighter ever after P47

Nobody talks about the Sturmbock here... absolutely nobody.

W T H...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

The Pe-3 rear gunners and their rifle caliber shouldn't be too effective against armor. The .50cal on the Il-2 should do damage, but Shvaks, at an angle? I'd say it's a gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pe-3 rear gunners and their rifle caliber shouldn't be too effective against armor. The .50cal on the Il-2 should do damage, but Shvaks, at an angle? I'd say it's a gamble.

 

 

I'm really struggling to understand what it is you're trying to clarify here.  The Focke-Wulf 190 may have been a reasonably robust fighter aircraft for its time but it was not, in any respect, a tank.  The pilot was reasonably well protected from splinters and small arms fire directed at him from either the front or rear, but no more so than most other fighter pilots circa 1942-43.  The motor also had some armour fitted to it but then so too did the Merlin in a Spitfire.  This made both aircraft marginally less vulnerable to bullet strikes in the engine compartment but not by much.  Perhaps your chances of surviving a frontal attack improved by 4 or 5 percentage points, but certainly not much more.  If you were foolish enough to sit behind a bomber that was shooting at you, in either aircraft, you'd very quickly be shot out of the sky. 

 

If you're looking for a way to avoid the tedious task of developing your skills as a pilot then I'm afraid the armour fitted to a 190 won't help you very much.  For all practical purposes it was about as vulnerable to enemy fire as any other fighter aircraft of the period fitted with a radial engine.   Sorry to disillusion you but that's just the reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jetman33barrettjet

Not sure how the P-39 got in here but corrections are in order. We in the west had about 5000 Airacobras.

The P-39 in the Pacific was too short ranged and we operated it by the book. In spite of that it shot down over 100 Japanese aircraft including Zeros for a loss of 102 Airacobras. The Russians learned to use it in the best possible manner. Basing the P-39 right on the frontlines just outside artillery range and using Brit Radar they "acquired" . The Russians learned to run the P-39 balls to the wall at war emergency power and use a "bookshelf" formation. They had 4300+ P-39s and used them to shoot down over 5200 German aircraft, the largest number destroyed by any U.S. fighter.  Two thirds of them were Bf-109 and Fw-190s. They lost about a thousand P-39s. The number 2 ace and half of the top ten VVS Aces flew the "little Kobra". The Russians never modified it except to beef up the tail and restrict the dive speed to 427 mph IAS. They loved it. 

It is true that the ground attack Fw-190 was not a fighter but a heavier version flown by Stuka pilots, not trained fighter pilots.

Good reading:

Alexander Pokryshkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pokryshkin

And it won the 1946 Thompson Trophy National Air Race against P-51 Mustangs, P-38 Lightenings and all others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...